P2 – “Personally I am a little suspicious as to why a career bureaucrat on the up could possibly want a possible poisoned chalice like the FF CEO position...”

Gee whiz – there’s an old can of worms, unopened for many a year. There were always two strongly argued and well supported positions taken on the Byron demise. That he was nobbled has never been in doubt, but by whom has intrigued many. Where P2 has taken this is ‘interesting’. Personally, I’ve never been completely convinced by either argument and a serious lack of ‘insider’ proof and a surfeit of tittle –tattle clouded the waters. However as the topic is slated for discussion – it may be worth providing a brief outline of the original conundrum. You can toss the coin and decide the answer to P2’s question; in short:-

Heads – Carmody was part and parcel of the Byron embuggerance; coveted the job and hung about long after he should have followed his leader, hoping to get it. Now having finally attained his goal through patience and persistence.

Tails – Carmody was nearly as damaged by the putsch as Byron and not party to it. Which only leaves one question begging, why the delay in taking up a ‘plum’ job with another department. Memory fails but several months is a figure that pops up. McConvict certainly wouldn’t want a bureaucrat hanging about; and it’s doubtful that Aleck and Co. wanted Carmody hanging about – if he knew where the murder weapon was.

So, in a nutshell that is the debate – will it be payback time or a reunion of co conspirators? One thing is clear, Carmody’s actions will be defined by the past; perhaps we shall see the truth of it finally emerge. Many questions to answer. It is an intriguing part of the CASA saga.

Just a stray thought – did you ever get one of those really long, skinny splinters in your hand; the thin sharp kind which burrow down and seal the skin behind them – they are the very devil to get out; deep digging with something sharp, hurts like hell. Be interesting to see how Carmody removes them; if he's got them – there is no painless, bloodless way.

There is revolt fermenting among the peasants. Whilst the Minister sits pat in Canberra doling out edicts, the angry villagers of the aviation community are getting themselves organised and sharpening their pitchforks. It would seem that enough is enough, and open rebellion can no longer be discounted. The trigger to start the war is the Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC). Designed to make our RPT airports more secure, the ASIC has failed to do that, but has succeeded in sucking a lot of money out of general aviation. And, as most panic-stricken bureaucracies tend do, the department has brought in more stringent rules that apply from 1 August. From then, you will have to present your ID documents to the Issuing Body in person, not by mail and not over the internet. And as good bureaucrats do, they have not let the fact that this is nearly impossible get in the way of declaring it a great idea. The concept is so rubbish-riddled that RAAus has decided to stop being an Issuing Body. So let's get this straight. We now have to have our ID papers authenticated in person by someone who is acceptable in the eyes of the federal government (police, JP, lawyers, pharmacists ... there's a long list), then we have to front up with those papers to have them authenticated again by someone who is NOT accepted by the federal government to do so. To err is human, but to make a monumental blunder you have to have a bureaucrat! To make matter worse, the current Issuing Bodies are in real strife, because most of them just had their business catchment restricted to their local area, and those pilots not in the local area of an Issuing Body are, well, stuffed. For example, AviationID Australia is in Merimbula, NSW, which is very convenient for the pilots at Frogs Hollow. If AviationID can't get agencies right around Australia by 1 August, from where to they get their business now? And have you looked at Victoria? I would count the number of ASIC Issuing Bodies in the state on my fingers, but I could be accused of making a rude gesture.There is one: Melbourne Airport.

Quote:airports don't want to become collateral damage in a war between general aviation pilots and the federal government

The result is that a significant number of pilots around Australia are starting to talk boycott. Boycotting the ASIC also means boycotting any airport that has RPT. This is a move the industry needs to think carefully about, especially when it comes to getting fuel. I am sure the airports don't want to become collateral damage in a war between general aviation pilots and the federal government, but when you think about it, what other weapons do we have? Personally, I will not renew my ASIC when it comes up again, if for no other reason than I have no idea where my Issuing Body is based. They are talking about getting Australia Post to act as agents, which will be fantastic, except Australia Post won't be doing it gratis, so we can all expect the sticker price on an ASIC to increase and even more money will flow out of general aviation.

On a much brighter note, the Australian Aviation Hall of Fame (AAHOF) has found a home at the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society (HARS) at Illawarra Regional Airport. Obviously there is great synergy between the two, and HARS does appear to have the weight of activity and finance behind them to make for a great partnership. I do feel sorry that we couldn't make this happen in Wagga Wagga, given that the council there has been a great supporter of the concept almost from Day One. However, sometimes practicalities have to carry the day, and a AAHOF/HARS marriage can do nothing but bear fruit.

It's pleasing to see that the issue of training space for Bankstown and Camden is already under the noses of the Forum on Western Sydney Airport (FOWSA). The momentum to build Badgerys Creek has bulldozed general aviation into the dust as the clamour for economic benefit takes precedence. It has been left to Regional Aviation Association CEO Mike Higgins and Bankstown CEO Lee de Winton to play Arthur Dent and throw themselves before the bulldozers to make sure GA's needs are taken into account with appropriate import. There are some in the industry that are concerned that the RAAA may have a conflict of interest, given that most of their members are regional airlines that stand to benefit from Badgerys Creek being built. However, the RAAA also has an interest in the health of flight training in the Sydney basin because many of their current pilots would have trained at the very schools that are now facing the threat, and it can be expected many of their future pilots will do so as well.

Now is the time to panic, and don't hesitate! There are now only two weeks before the 2017 Wings Awards nominations close. If you haven't already got your candidate all sorted and the submission down to the polishing stage, you still have time, but you won't be able to linger. Remember, it is not good enough just to put a name forward; the RAeS wants to see how well your candidate fits the criteria, so get your head down and get that submission in!

The ASIC card concept always amuses me; when it come to ‘practical’ matters; such as opening a bank account, or leaving the country; or, simply being pulled over by the RBT unit.Try to convince a friendly Plod at 0430 o’clock, that your ASIC is proof of identity; you’re likely to get a metaphorical ‘thick ear’ for being a smart arse and buggering him about. The bank clerk will put on a sad face after the confusion has been assuaged and regretfully, politely but firmly tell you to sod off. Even the simple matter of retrieving a parcel of choc frogs from Mum at the post office will be a non event if you flash your ASIC.

Through the various agencies we are obliged to have contact with, we are probably one of the most ‘documented’ peoples on the planet; from birth to shuffling off the old mortal coil. Think on; privacy is a non existent commodity in our society, consider the SPAM you receive on your home computer, your privacy is constantly being invaded. The only poor buggers who have rules preventing that invasion are the coppers (bless ‘em all). I digress.

But, to me at least; even with the ASIC, airport - airside security is a sham, the ASIC an expensive placebo, a sop to convince the gullible public that all is well. It ain’t, we know it, they know it and the villains most certainly know it. The back room systems ‘in place’ are the real deterrent, those and the visible ones, such as the coppers ambling around the place; but that pathetic, annoying little red plastic card is not; never was, never will be.

Would I care to donate $100 a year towards improved airside security? Absolutely; no hesitation. Am I prepared to waste the same amount on a useless, time wasting irritant, one which almost guarantees the 100% attention of the fools who do the ‘explosives’ test? No, I would not. Endit……..

I’m pleased and honoured to have been appointed as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s new chief executive and director of aviation safety, and I’m amazed how Australian aviation has evolved compared to 2009 when I was last at CASA.

While Australia remains a global leader in aviation safety, I’m very aware that we face challenges brought about by continued growth and technological change.

My vision is for CASA to be an open and transparent regulator, one the aviation industry finds it easy to do business with. My conclusion after eight months as acting director of aviation safety is that achieving this goal is more a matter of reforming CASA’s systems than its people. I’m impressed by the dedication and expertise of CASA’s staff, their commitment to fairness, and where appropriate, firmness in overseeing aviation safety.

I’m keen to improve our service delivery. People coming to CASA for approvals, licences or certificates have every right to expect efficient, streamlined and timely service. We are making a concerted effort to make doing business with us simpler, by improving our systems and centralising data, such as online forms and payment, as well as reviewing licensing and certification policy.

And we’re seeing improvement. We have received valuable feedback, for example, on aviation medicals, which will inform changes to the system. We have delivered improvements in flight-crew licensing with more than 99 per cent of applications being processed within service delivery time frames and more than 85 per cent of aviation medical applications processed on time.

By streamlining our systems, and centralising data, we can focus more effectively on using this data to continue to improve aviation safety.

Aviation is moving into the world of big data, with thousands of gigabytes generated every day. Analysed correctly, this provides an opportunity to create a new proactive model of risk management. It’s a world in which otherwise latent hazards can be discovered hiding in the data of thousands of uneventful flights.

We will know even more about what is going on by looking at data, and we will engage openly and honestly with industry. We should strive to keep industry “in the loop” about the issues we see emerging from the data and from our broader sectoral analysis. We want to be able to take a risk-based rather than a kneejerk approach to safety management.

One important objective for me has been to reboot how we consult with the aviation community.

From July 1, I will establish a new consultation body — the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel — and I am pleased to welcome some of Australia’s most senior aviation leaders to the group.

Senior representatives from Qantas, Virgin Australia, the Australian Airports Association and the Australian Aviation Associations Forum have agreed to work together on aviation safety.

ASAP will provide CASA with objective, high-level advice from the aviation community on current and emerging issues with significant implications for aviation safety and the way CASA performs its functions. It will consolidate several existing forums, and become the avenue through which CASA seeks industry input on regulatory and policy approaches.

Most importantly, through the forum we will seek to agree on the objectives and policy outcomes — before we then call our technical experts to do the detailed work.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has served on such panels in the past. Our work together will continue.

CASA’s overriding responsibility for aviation safety leadership, however, means that there will always be limits. We cannot appease everyone, nor meet every request. Regulatory activities are inherently challenging and CASA ultimately has to make the call on major safety questions.

My intention is that once we settle on a position we will stick to it and deliver on what we have said we will deliver. If we can do this, we will maintain the trust and respect of the industry as a whole.

A key recent challenge for CASA has been the growth of unmanned aircraft, popularly and irresistibly known as drones.

Drones have enormous potential for making aviation and society safer, by doing many of the repetitive and dangerous aerial jobs without risking human lives.

The economic benefits of this flourishing industry are considerable. However, this emerging industry poses challenges to us as the regulator because we now have to communicate with a new public — people who have had little or no exposure to aviation, and for whom concepts such as aviation safety for all users, restricted and controlled airspace and the safety of the Australian travelling public, are not front of mind. One of my priorities will be bringing this new group into the broader aviation community, so that together we maintain and improve Australia’s aviation safety performance.

Clearly we need to do things differently.

I know that many in the industry are fatigued by delays in some of our regulation reforms; our process has been too slow and too long, and not sufficiently focused on practical, common sense applications. But I am confident that by working co-operatively with the aviation community we can make positive progress and deliver effective change that delivers “safe skies for all”.

Shane Carmody is the chief executive and director of aviation safety at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

And this week's LMH... :

Quote:

The Last Minute Hitch: 23 June 2017
23 June 2017

My first thought when I heard about CASA's new Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) was that the industry needs a new committee like it needs more SIDs. However, if you ferret through the undergrowth you will find a couple of encouraging truffles amongst the mushrooms. First of all, this seems to be not so much a new panel as a consolidation of all the other consultative panels CASA has working for them. That has to be a good thing; fewer committees generally means fewer camels. Secondly (and this is a bit hidden in officialese), CASA has stated that issues will go to ASAP first before any work starts on solutions. If ASAP actually functions this way, it's a huge step forward for sensible regulation. It's part of human nature to identify a problem and one potential solution at the same time. CASA's problem historically has been that the solution was often unworkable, but Not Invented Here Syndrome has seen them ignore learned advice and cling doggedly to their ideas like Gollum to a gold ring. Ultimately, this panel is advisory and any action is purely at the discretion of the Director of Aviation Safety. He can choose to ignore advice and stick with the convenient solution, which, if done with regularity, will result in ASAP becoming the white elephant in the room.

Quote:"Not Invented Here Syndrome has seen them ignore learned advice"

And so we could be looking at a few things happening come the start of July. Not only does ASAP kick in, but also the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) is due to complete its study into general aviation. The outcome of this study has the potential to set the benchmark for Australian governments' attitudes toward general aviation for years to come. Have a look now at how the Labour Party still falls back on its Aviation White Paper. So, what will the report say? If the industry is right, it will say that jobs are at risk for a number of factors, and the government needs to do something to protect it. However, if BITRE's numbers don't add up to that conclusion, we can expect it to be used against us every time we call for government action. Mind you, if the track record of most reports and inquiries into aviation is to be continued, we can probably expect an announcement of an extension soon.

Also, nominations for the general aviation Wings Awards close on 1 July. That means you should just about be done with your submission by now and just polishing it around the edges a bit. During the week I was asked how a nominator could submit supporting documents. If you want to do this, e-mail them to me stevehitchen@yaffa.com.au and I will pass them on to the entire judging panel along with your web-based submission. So get cracking; time is of the essence.

And now we have some great news for a couple of Australian Flying readers! We recently ran subscription and Facebook competitions to win some really good gear, and these two have done just that! Rachel Hawke has scored a Lightspeed Gann flight bag valued at $399 for doing nothing more than signing up for our weekly newsletter.

Congratulations, Rachel ... this is a classy piece of kit. And Alexander Courtney has won a Bose A20 top-of-the-range noise-canceling headset worth $1400 for subscribing to the print version of Australian Flying ... and he got a great deal on Australia's premier GA magazine as well! Thanks to everyone who participated in these competitions, and stand by for news on your next chance to win big through Australian Flying.

Unless you have just strolled onto an airport for the first time, or been in a space capsule on Mars for three decades, it is possible that the latest ‘blurb’ from Carmody will cheer you. However, if you are an active aviation participant, you have to either smile and find a bucket – or take a taxi to the gap.

I wonder which planet Carmody has been on. Seriously – has he read the draft report on the shameful Pel-Air event – he should, before the world gets to see it. Then I wonder how he has the brass neck to tout the latest ‘satisfaction survey’ as an example of how CASA is now, suddenly, wonderful. “What survey?” you ask – well, the one that fails to mention some of the major CASA inflicted headaches; like, no change to the McConvict signed ‘open slather’ rider to the ‘Embuggerance Manual’; Part 61 costs and associated stupidity, Part 135 cock-up; CAO 48.1 and the excesses that invokes; the lack of any real acceptance of the Forsyth report; SID’s; or, even the control cable lunacy; litmus tests all. But not mentioned in the ‘survey’ which is fluffed around the edges with inane, carefully selected questions and answers - CASA – “Do you believe all CASA officers should wear matching jocks and socks?” – all deep, probing, self appraisal questions with predictable answers - not. Now Carmody wants us to believe CASA is a ‘honest’ hard working, conscientious, caring agency, with only our best interests at heart. Failed – Lietous test.

Following the ‘survey we get the ‘blurb’. I wonder where he gets the neck to publish it – after having managed to infuriate the RRAT Estimates committee and piss on industry in record time. The ministerial glove puppet then goes on to produce one of the biggest loads of open ended ‘rhetoric’ yet recorded. All the unmitigated Bollocks this pathetic individual we have for a minister would sell to the local CWA; although, I doubt the CWA is that naive.

“[and] I’m amazed how Australian aviation has evolved compared to 2009 when I was last at CASA.”

Yup, me too. ‘cept there’s a mistake the editor omitted; I shall correct it (save the him the bother).

“[and] I’m amazed how Australian aviation has devolved compared to 2009 when I was last at CASA.”

When Carmody was last at CASA there was a busy, thriving industry, which under Byron was actually starting to rub along with CASA; but that was many years and aberrations ago.

“My vision is for CASA to be an open and transparent regulator, “ etc.

Watch how ‘transparent it gets when we compare the 'draft' Pel-Air to the 'final' published version. (Yes Greg, you leak). The shutters will slam down, the drawbridge raised and locked, while the smoke and mirrors machine crew go on overtime. Failed – Lietous test.

“[one] the aviation industry finds it easy to do business with”. Etc.

There are a few operators who could tell Carmody just how difficult, tedious, expensive, frustrating it actually is; before they got onto the ‘good stuff’ related to just how devious, deceitful, venal, incompetent and lazy some of those industry is forced to do business with (no option) really are. But Carmody won’t hear a bar of that song – history, in his purview, is best ignored. Failed – Lietous test.

“My conclusion after eight months as acting director of aviation safety is that achieving this goal is more a matter of reforming CASA’s systems than its people.”

There stands as clear an indication that those who have, for the last decade, inflicted more damage and created more anger, lied, cheated, stolen, milked, bilked and prostituted the powers granted will be allowed to continue in the same manner, as you will ever see. CASA 'system' is hidebound, cumbersome and could do with a reform package and upgrade; but while the same evil is allowed to continue, unchallenged and unpunished; there is nothing but more of the same on the horizon. The only change will be that from now on, it will be better hidden by a ‘professional’ bureaucratic mantle of denial. Failed – Lietous test.

“I’m impressed by the dedication and expertise of CASA’s staff, their commitment to fairness, and where appropriate, firmness in overseeing aviation safety.”

Well, at least there’s one person who is. What a pity he’s the their boss. Failed – Lietous test.

And so begins; the reign of Shameless O’ Carmody; off to a stellar start with some Senators calling ‘no confidence’ and none disagreeing with the call. I can’t be bothered taking the rest of this fatuous, fluffy statement apart; and anyway, the Hansard video of the last Estimates depicts the man, his attitude, arrogance and ambivalence toward a panel of Senators who actually have access to the real facts and circumstances. Time has beaten me – again, but I shall save up for Sunday - perhaps we should examine in depth just why Carmody has already ‘screwed the pooch’ where it matters – in the Senate. MTF? Probably, once I get past the ‘retching for the bucket’ stage.

As I sit here typing I am listening to the start-up sounds of a Piper Archer. The pilot and family are heading off for what they expect will be an enjoyable flight along the Victorian coast. In January last year, I am sure someone at Moorabbin listened to a Cherokee 235 burst into life as it set off on a leisurely flight to King Island. Only that flight wasn't so leisurely; the pilot and crew encountered poor visibility south of Barwon Heads and the result was the worst possible outcome. It has to frustrate both CASA and the ATSB that pilots continue to push the limits of visual flight, only to find that if they cross that limit there is no coming back. It happened again this week near Mount Gambier. Why do we keep doing this? Do we think we are better pilots than we really are? Are we not adequately trained in reading weather conditions? I don't think even the ATSB has answers regardless of all the messages they and CASA send out. That Piper Archer has just rolled on the runway blessed with much more amenable weather conditions than PXD had, and several airports en route. I look forward to seeing them again in a few hours.

“This may reflect on AOPA's determination not to play by the traditional Canberra political rules”

AOPA Australia must be feeling a tad marginalised in Canberra at the moment. AOPA has done as much as any association to try to shepherd genuine reforms through the bureaucratic maze, but they find themselves on the outer when it comes to consultation groups. AOPA has not been included on the Forum on Western Sydney Airport (FOWSA), which Ed Husic MP raised in parliament last week, nor on CASA's new Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). Admittedly, not every association can sit on every panel or committee (it would make it completely disfunctional), but AOPA is a big one to leave out. In the case of ASAP, The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) of which AOPA is a member, has got a guernsey, so CASA has pointed out that AOPA has representation through them. Here's one possible, but not the only, answer why AOPA doesn't make it to the tables. CASA and the department see TAAAF, RAAus and RAAA as professional organisations, but AOPA may come across to them as well-meaning, but perhaps a tad amateurish. This may reflect on AOPA's determination not to play by the traditional Canberra political rules.

You just can't applaud Orange Aero Engineering loud enough, can you? Daniel Thomas and his team have donated refurbishing skills to AOPA to restore a C152 to be used to inspire young people to get involved in aviation. The value of this is thought to be around $50,000. This is a great contribution Orange Aero have made to the future of general aviation, and it is only one part of an enlightenment happening in GA that we all need to put in to our community if we want to prosper. Both AOPA and GA need more people like this who are prepared to step up and say "we can help". Much kudos and a shout out to this team.

Red Bull is back in Budapest this weekend, which I look forward to every year more than any other round. I suppose I am a bit like those people who watch the Tour de France only for the scenery and don't worry much about the bike riders. I love the old buildings and statues, the iconic Chain Bridge and the beautiful meandering Danube that separates the old cities of Buda and Pest. But the difference between me and the TdF watchers is that I care immensely about what happens on the track. Go Matt Hall!

Tomorrow marks the official closing of Wings Awards nominations. However, your judging panel has again been swayed to extend the deadline by a week. You now have until the end of the day on Saturday 8 July to get your nomination in. So, if you missed it by hair, you have a seven day grace period. We look forward to seeing more submissions.

This week I had the most enlightening experience of using the new CASA AVMED system in anger. That's not a metaphor; I really got angry with it. When CASA's stakeholder engagement people knew I was up for my Class 2 renewal, they said they would be very interested in my feedback, so strap in guys, here it is. The online system probably has merit, but I am struggling to find it right now. As I see it, it's the same old rubbishy questionnaire, but now you do it with a computer, not a pen. And that is my first problem: once you have submitted it there's no way to correct errors. With a pen you could always cross it out and put in the right answer, but not with this system.

Quote: I can imagine, given the average age of private pilots, that many can't remember those details

Which leads to my second beef: there is no date limit for the information they demand. Questions such as "have you ever had an x-ray?" or "have you ever been to see a medical practitioner?" are accompanied with a request for the month and year you did it.
I can imagine, given the average age of private pilots, that many can't remember those details, meaning either making up some rubbish or omitting it simply to get to the next step. And when you think about it, how does having a x-ray for a broken arm in 1974 affect a pilot's fitness to fly in 2017? Yet, that info is required. In other words, the system encourages pilots to lie either directly or by omission, just because its easier, and human nature will always guide us down the easiest path. Even my DAME when asking questions used the qualifier "recently".

Now comes the most important part of the AVMED system: paying the $75 fee. The system states quite emphatically (and confirmed with a call to CASA) that the fee for Class 1 and 3 can be paid in advance, but not a Class 2; that has to be paid "at the time of examination." My DAME knew nothing about that and got frustrated when trying to process my medical, It seems the system detected no payment and therefore refused to have anything to do with me. The DAME knew nothing about taking money and neither did his staff. A call back to CASA revealed that DAMEs are resisting taking the money on CASA's behalf. In the end it got sorted with me giving my credit card details to CASA directly, and they went through $75 worth of work to push a button somewhere. On the credit side, my proper medical certificate arrived the next day. That was impressive!
Righto, so what does all that mean? Simply put, getting it online could be a good idea, but the questionnaire should have been straightened out and made more relevant and logical first.

AOPA Australiahas delivered a broadside to CASAover what they say is unfair exclusion from the new ASAP. In a letter to Shane Carmody and The Hon. Darren Chester MP, AOPA CEO Ben Morgan all but accuses CASA of deliberately stifling genuine feedback and industry opposition. That might be one salvo too many to say that, but many of the other arguments are compelling. However, it seems to me there is more at stake here: the question of who represents GA in Canberra. Both the department and CASA appear very happy to deal with TAAAF, most likely because it means they can deal with one consolidated voice from the bleachers rather than a cacophany of different opinions from each and every acronym. TAAAF is supposed to be a united voice, so by AOPA, AMROBA and AAAA wanting separate representation, are they telling us that TAAAF is not as united as they are supposed to be? What other conclusion are we supposed to draw?

And we have our answer now on the BITRE GA study: it's been delayed until 31 August. As I said in LMH on 23 June, this report will be used to justify government action and in-action for several years to come, so it really does represent a milestone in the future of general aviation in Australia. The other thing we need to remember is that 31 August is the day the report is due to be handed to the minister, not the day the general public gets to find out what's in it. For that we may have to hang on for a few weeks further until the department has perused it, digested it, then prepared a response. It is possible that response, when it comes, will be more earth-shaking than the report itself.

One more day and that's it! The 2017 Wings Awards nominations have to close at midnight tomorrow night. We have become aware of several late nominations (usually via frantic phone calls), and all we can do is encourage them to get in what they have. It's better to be on the list than not on the list, even if you really haven't polished the submission the way you want to. So get your skates on and get them in.

CASA's MRO figures tell a story that most of us were familiar with several years ago: the industry's engine is misfiring and unless we are able to diagnose and correct the problem we can expect to glide to an inevitable collision with terrain. That, of course, presumes that the number of maintenance organisations is an indicator of industry health. I find it interesting that compulsory measures such as the Cessna SIDs program and the mandatory fitment of ADS-B has drawn large amounts of cash into the MRO industry that would not normally have been spent, but still companies are closing their doors. CASA, as expected, has come out and said there's more to the causes than just regulation. The two they cite are legitimate: business is moving overseas or into the recreational sector.

However, both of these causes have resulted in the loss of jobs AOPA predicted in May last year. It is true that we can't analyse anything simply in aviation, and so CASA's answers themselves need greater examination. Why have jobs gone overseas? Why is there a trend toward recreational aviation? And those questions are just the start of it!

Quote:"the rising cost of providing flight training has caused many schools to close over the years"

What I find most interesting is Ken Cannane's left-of-centre solution that the decline in MROs comes down to not having independent flying instructors. The bow he has drawn is not as long as that statement first appears. The base problem the industry has, I believe, is simply diminishing participation. Collectively, the private and training sectors accounted for more GA hours in 2013 than any other single sector, which highlights how important it is to the industry as a whole. Unfortunately, the rising cost of providing flight training has caused many schools to close over the years, and new entrants have been focussing on international students and training almost solely for airlines. Independent instructors hanging out their shingles at smaller regional airports would improve the catchment for private GA, but that would happen only if they weren't burdened with regulations that require an ops manual larger than the complete set of Encyclopedia Britannica and a quality system designed for an airline.

Has Australia has its first aeroplane-drone collision? Certainly something hit an FTA Tobago on approach to Parafield, and the ATSB stated that it could potentially be a remotely-piloted aircraft. It would have all been much simpler if there was either drone wreckage or a bird carcass underneath the flight path, but the absence of both has made life harder for the ATSB. What this incident has served to do is add weaponary to the arsenal of senators currently fuming over the drone regulations. With a senate inquiry into the industry well underway, this incident may prove vital evidence that impacts the outcome. Or, it could just be another birdstrike.

And that's it for the 2017 Wings Awards nominations! Entries have closed for the year and are now with the judging panel. Thanks to all those who send in submissions. It seems you were all listening as the quality of nomination this year was excellent, making life more difficult for the judges, but also giving every submission a decent shot at winning. Well done to all those who nominated.

I find it most interesting that everyone loves the quote "Lies, damned lies and statistics", yet although it is possibly one of the most quoted phrases in political history, no-one has ever claimed to be the originator. Mark Twain said that it was Benjamin Disraeli, but nothing has ever been found in Disraeli's papers so most people attribute it to Twain. To me it reflects the problem inherent with statistics: the world needs them but they can be interpreted so many different ways that the very same set of numbers can be used to support just about any argument. Consequently, their true value can never be established. So what are we to think now BITRE has released the 2015 aviation activity figures? For sure they show a decline in VH-registered GA hours of 2.4%, but those figure appear not to include "non-scheduled commercial air transport", which the industry tends to call "charter" (either open or FIFO) and considers an integral part of GA. The drop-off in that category is only 0.9%, which dilutes the GA decline to 2% total. That's the way BITRE has traditionally reported GA trends year-over-year. Also, the "Sport and Recreational" sector figures can be somewhat rubbery as well. Although it hints at a growth of 0.2%, closer inspection shows that the "recreational" bit has registered a 3% drop in hours. Yes, the gyro people showed growth and the vario on the glider industry's panel is making a 3.8% happy sound, but in real terms these two groups are not the future of this sector if we are measuring for economic recovery. That's RAAus, and by 2015 standards, it would appear they are in the same malaise as their VH-registered counterparts. Of course, that's the way I read the stats; you're free to make up your own lies.

Sometimes, when you're good at reading between lines, you start to understand something that you really hope you've got wrong. In the past couple of weeks, I have had a persistent thought that general aviation representation in Canberra is on the verge of being rent asunder. AOPA and AMROBA have been feeling very unloved after being left off the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, despite the inclusion of TAAAF, of which both groups are members. It caused me to air the thought that TAAAF might not be as united as we think they are. Now it seems that itch in my brain cells may be correct. I suspect we are about to see some of the TAAAF members taking their own path of advocacy rather than allowing TAAAF to speak on their behalf. This is not good at all. The reason TAAAF was taken onto ASAP is because CASA needs that united voice to be able to consult effectively. It has been said many times before that GA is not united in what they want, and that has always provided CASA with the ammunition they needed to justify ignoring calls for reform. You've all heard the old saying "divide and conquer". It refers to dividing and conquering the enemy, not dividing your own troops in order to win the battle. Should GA advocacy divide in Canberra, winning the war for reform will become a whole lot harder. No-one wins a civil war except the common enemy.

I just love Matt Hall's attitude towards racing. In spite of an ordinary year that has him in 11th place in the Red Bull Air Race World Championship, the Aussie appears to have no qualms about being prepared to lose in order to give himself the chance of winning. He managed to disqualify himself in Budapest by deliberately taking the aeroplane into a zone he didn't know much about. As a result, he exceeded the g-limit. If he got it right, he was in with a shot of a great performance, but he had to make the mistake in order to learn how to get it right. With Kazan on this weekend, you can be sure he'll be out there on the edge again as he seeks to find the performance limits of his plane. That could mean a blinder of a race for Hall, or another big lesson learnt. For sure he won't be playing it safe; he's done that before come off second best.

Hitch – “I suspect we are about to see some of the TAAAF members taking their own path of advocacy rather than allowing TAAAF to speak on their behalf.”

I suspect Hitch is picking up the same ‘vibe’ as AP and there are several IMO valid arguments to support the desire for ‘self representation’.

History supports this need for self representation to a point where it becomes a requirement. There have been many such ‘consultations’ very few of which have resulted in a satisfactory outcome for ‘all’ parties concerned. The proposed ‘broad brush’ approach to the different problems faced by individual associations, each with differing needs, is too early in the piece This particularly so when ‘reform’ is on the agenda and the ‘detail’ of that reform is imperative to the survival of each association.

Trust or, more accurately, the lack thereof remains in short supply. Not only is there a deep distrust of CASA, which has historically been proven accurate so many times over now, that it has become deeply ingrained in the industry thinking. Then, there is no track record to support those who have been selected to take part, not of the detail – the ‘nitty-gritty’ of each associations problems. There is also a growing perception that the small TAAAF team will become captive and begin to understand the CASA problems and negotiations will become skewed. No one is saying this will happen – but the perception, based on historical fact exists. Look no further than the great white hope - Boyd and the CASA board for confirmation.

Divide and conquer has long been an effective tool in the CASA bag of tricks; that and ‘control’, through overt and covert threat. Once the TAAAF team are engaged, there is no telling the outcome; and that adds to the worries of the folks awaiting those outcomes.

Hitch “ The reason TAAAF was taken onto ASAP is because CASA needs that united voice to be able to consult effectively.”

Therein lies the problem’s nub – a ‘united’ voice. Many would see that voice as being carefully selected to sing from the CASA hymn sheet. I doubt many in industry would believe CASA has any intention, whatsoever, of ‘reforming’. Leopards don’t change their spots; not in my jungle at least. The scurrilous, disrespectful treatment the Senate recommendations on Pel Air were given; added to the disgraceful attitude to Forsyth’s report lend serious support to the argument that CASA is, once again, dodging the bullets and reducing the noise level in the ministers office. It is a reasonable position to be concerned that ‘tame’ industry panel, which ‘understands’ how the game is played would suit the ministerial purpose.

Hitch - “It has been said many times before that GA is not united in what they want, and that has always provided CASA with the ammunition they needed to justify ignoring calls for reform.”

Only up to a point mate; and CASA has played a clever hand in fostering that disunity and promoting discord. But, if you talk to say – the Ag pilots and the Warbirds chaps – their ‘needs’ are similar; their wants identical. Talk to a regional airline operator and a parachute operator; their needs and wants are also similar. Talk to a flying school and an airline – same-same needs and wants. They are all united in one great need; reform of the regulator and the bloody awful regulations. There may be different requirements in operational detail and commercial objectives; but they are all rock solid on regulatory reform and red tape reduction. If that were to be the sole topic of the ASAP, then perhaps the various groups could relax and rely on a united, trusted voice. But they can’t, can they. The groups are reliant on a small, unknown group negotiating on their behalf. If I ran an association I think I’d want to be there to make certain that we had a say; a long, loud say as part of a united push the reform the regulator and the regulations. Can’t find it in me to blame anyone for wanting to be there; just to be sure, to be sure.

Hitch - “ You've all heard the old saying "divide and conquer". It refers to dividing and conquering the enemy, not dividing your own troops in order to win the battle. Should GA advocacy divide in Canberra, winning the war for reform will become a whole lot harder. No-one wins a civil war except the common enemy.

The solution is simplicity itself: resolve the distrust, remove the doubt, let any legitimate association provide a couple of representatives – Mike Smith for AOPA; Ken Cannane for AOPA, Phil Hurst for AAAA; and, whoever else is responsible to an organisation for it’s well being. What’s that, about six more seats at the table adding credibility. Sound fair and reasonable? Does to me./...
There can only be one cynical response to the minister refusing to acknowledge and include those who can provide a life time of expertise, knowledge and responsibility to the industry outside of airline operations; it’s a rigged game involving snake oil, smoke, mirrors and the same old party hats. I think Chester has made a serious blunder and widened the increasing credibility gap – poorly advised by those who are masters of deflecting any and all reforms; let alone wanting to admit that in thirty years, they have wasted $399, 999, 999 and managed to almost decimate a thriving industry in doing so.

If it ain’t the industry who did this; then government must take a long, hard look who did. Then ask why can’t the victims be heard – should they wish to speak.

“Come away, O human child!To the waters and the wildWith a faery, hand in hand,For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.” (Yeats).

From yet another soft cock, M&M scripted presser from miniscule 6D_NFI_Chester it is becoming quite obvious that the inevitable, self-serving pushback from the aviation safety bureaucracy is occurring... :

A fresh blueprint for the future for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been released by the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester.

Mr Chester said CASA's latest corporate plan continues CASA's focus on safety as its highest priority and sets out how the nation's aviation safety regulator will be pragmatic, practical and proportional in its responsibilities.

“The 2017–18 CASA corporate plan is a strong blueprint for the future of aviation safety regulation in Australia to help maintain our record of having one of the safest skies in the world,” Mr Chester said.

“In addition to its regulatory approach the plan identifies a number of key aviation activities and highlights strong stakeholder engagement as a priority.

“CASA will maintain and enhance a fair, effective and efficient aviation safety regulation system while collaboratively engaging with the wider aviation community to promote and support a positive safety culture. CASA will also continually improve its organisational performance.

“I am particularly pleased to see CASA is committed to modernising its service delivery to meet the evolving needs of all sectors of Australian aviation.

“In 2017–18 CASA will develop a customer service charter that will shape the way it delivers client services.

“It will optimise client service channel options and will drive a digital first approach to medical certification.

“The overarching objective will be to create an efficient, simple and accessible experience for the people and organisations in aviation that conduct regulatory business with CASA,” Mr Chester said.

Other important initiatives in the latest CASA corporate plan include a review of the safety regulatory strategy for remotely piloted aircraft systems, commencing implementation of the final tranche of regulatory reform, and continuing the implementation of the Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review.

An updated blueprint for the future for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has been released by the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester.

Mr Chester said CASA’s latest corporate plan continues CASA’s focus on safety as its highest priority and sets out how the nation’s aviation safety regulator will be pragmatic, practical and proportional in its responsibilities.

“The 2017–18 CASA corporate plan is a strong blueprint for the future of aviation safety regulation in Australia to help maintain our record of having one of the safest skies in the world,” Mr Chester said.

“In addition to its regulatory approach the plan identifies a number of key aviation activities and highlights strong stakeholder engagement as a priority.

“CASA will maintain and enhance a fair, effective and efficient aviation safety regulation system while collaboratively engaging with the wider aviation community to promote and support a positive safety culture. CASA will also continually improve its organisational performance.

“I am particularly pleased to see CASA is committed to modernising its service delivery to meet the evolving needs of all sectors of Australian aviation.

“In 2017–18 CASA will develop a customer service charter that will shape the way it delivers client services.

“It will optimise client service channel options and will drive a digital first approach to medical certification.

“The overarching objective will be to create an efficient, simple and accessible experience for the people and organisations in aviation that conduct regulatory business with CASA,” Mr Chester said.

Other important initiatives in the latest CASA corporate plan include a review of the safety regulatory strategy for remotely piloted aircraft systems, commencing implementation of the final tranche of regulatory reform, and continuing the implementation of the Government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review.

It really is tiresome and somewhat depressing reading M&M scripted drivel like this.
The same old, same old stuff.
A bit of a trawl back over the past twenty years of "Statements" reveals the same old platitudes,
same old mother goose statements, all very nice and touchy feely for the regulators troops but
nothing of substance for whats left of a bleeding demoralised industry, just a sure
knowledge that more of the same is coming their way, nothing will change.

"Mr Chester said CASA's latest corporate plan continues CASA's focus on safety as its highest priority and sets out how the nation's aviation safety regulator will be pragmatic, practical and proportional in its responsibilities."

Past performance, the list of embuggerances and double standards gives the lie to this statement.
"Safety as the highest priority"...... Its NOT about safety its about self service and aggrandisement.

"Practical"?...is there anyone in the industry who believes Part61 is in the slightest "Practical"?

“In addition to its regulatory approach the plan identifies a number of key aviation activities and highlights strong stakeholder engagement as a priority."

We are rapidly approaching a point where it will be very hard to identify any aviation activities other than RPT, the government subsidised corporations disguised as charities and the military.

“The 2017–18 CASA corporate plan is a strong blueprint for the future of aviation safety regulation in Australia to help maintain our record of having one of the safest skies in the world,” Mr Chester said."

Perhaps if this statement read as:

“The 2017–18 CASA corporate plan is a strong blueprint for the future of aviation safety regulation in Australia to help maintain our record of having one of the most expensive skies in the world,” Mr Chester said."

It would be closer to the truth, Safest we are most certainly not.

“In 2017–18 CASA will develop a customer service charter that will shape the way it delivers client services.

In this "Modern" era CAsA virtually runs the smaller operations. From the CEO down they decide who oversees corporate governance within a company, even to the point where CAsA FOI's dictate who may be employed and who may not.They decide how operations are to be conducted, according to their own opinions, in some cases contrary to manufacturers recommendations, they decide how they are to be maintained, sometimes contrary to manufacturers recommendations. This ghost management of aviation companies is by and large dictated by a "Public Service" mentality, where cost and practicality form no part of the matrix. A great example of the mindset can be seen in a waffle piece on the CAsA web sight to promote safety management systems. There was an imaginary business operating a couple of Navajo's and a Metro. This imaginary company required no less than twenty admin staff.
If CAsA staff are ghost running GA companies is it any wonder so many are going to the wall.

“The overarching objective will be to create an efficient, simple and accessible experience for the people and organisations in aviation that conduct regulatory business with CASA,” Mr Chester said.

The question is, why bother? there will soon be nobody left to conduct regulatory business with.

I would have thought a better statement would have been;

"Due to the continuing decline of aviation activity, CAsA see's no imperative to invest in any further costly aviation "reform".
The current rule set has been very effective in containing aviation accidents, therefore CAsA's focus is to embark on a rationalisation of staff numbers to reflect the current environment with a view to implementing efficiencies by way of redundancies across its workforce."

Unfortunately the unintended consequence of this would be a sharp decline in the academic world as it appears a good many CAsA staff spend the majority of their working time studying for their masters degrees or PHD's.

This GGG 'up yours Senators' input on the semantics of what qualifies as a 'catastrophic' engine failure, so incensed Barry'O'Braces that he again brought up the exchange at subsequent Drone Wars inquiry hearings:

Quote:Dr Martin : I often think, don't get involved in things that are not within your sphere of control. The argument in and around recreational UAVs and sub-two-kilo thresholds and the consequence of that—there is so much uncertainty and political stuff involved with it that I leave it to you and CASA.

Mr Thynne : I pose a question, Senator, about determination of what the acceptable level of risk is. How you determine to treat a risk depends on what is an acceptable level of risk, and the values you place on various things. The Kiwis, for example, actually have a dollar value on the lives of people, and they use that in determining acceptable risk for their aviation rules. What is the acceptable level of risk in Australia for aviation?

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Well, the head of CASA told us that it is like a man on a bicycle going into the traffic—evidence before the Senate estimates inquiry. So, you are 100 per cent right. But we do not share that view; we have another view, a different description of the risk profile, as do any number of peer reviewed studies from around the world, on the precautionary principle: sub-two-kilo, if it hits the nose cone of a passenger aircraft, could penetrate it, and all that comes with that. Do you want to know CASA's risk profile? They said to us that if it goes into a turbine engine, 'Don't fret; you'll only lose that engine, and the other one will still be going.' I mean, you wonder why we have a rash, why we break out in a sweat in this space. This is the sort of attitude we are confronting from our regulators. And what we are trying to get from the community—we are doing exactly what you have called for. You have to be able to answer the tough questions. You have to be able to tell us that we can allow for the proliferation of an industry....

I wonder how Barry O will feel when he discovers that this same individual (i.e. GGG) is currently running Fort Fumble, while (rumour has it) CC is on hols and providing top-cover support as acting infrastructure puppet-master for Muppet 6D: (who is OS playing with Chinese train-sets... - see HERE).

Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has widened its monitoring of foreign airlines to include International Air Transport Association (IATA) safety audit data.

The nation’s aviation safety watchdog has signed a memorandum of understanding with the airlines’ industry body to gain access to IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) reports.

“CASA will use the IOSA information to complement the existing oversight and surveillance of foreign airlines,” CASA acting chief executive and director of aviation safety Graeme Crawford said in the July CASA Briefing note.

“It will also be used as part of the assessment process for new foreign carriers seeking authorisation to operate to Australia.”

Crawford said Australia was the first country in Asia Pacific to use IOSA as part of the safety oversight of airlines.

The IOSA program assesses the operational management and control systems of an airline. Airlines must hold IOSA certification to be a member of IATA. There are also airlines that have gone through the IOSA program but are not members of IATA.

While CASA will initially only access foreign carrier IOSA reports, Crawford said the aim was to eventually include locally-based airlines.

“In the future we expect to have access to IOSA information in relation to Australian carriers, which will be used to support our existing audit and surveillance work,” Crawford said.

“CASA worked closely with IATA to understand their audit processes, quality assurance arrangements and management of approved auditors.

“The use of the information will benefit airlines as it will make CASA’s surveillance and audits even more efficient and effective.”

CASA noted US Federal Aviation Administration, the European Aviation Safety Agency and China already had agreements to share IOSA information.

Err...no comment except to say it is passing strange that a former Qantas Executive manager - see GGG CV HERE - who should have vast experience on the safety aspects and costs of suffering any form of engine failure, could be so blasé to the possible implications of a drone impacting and being sucked through the intake of a large jet turbine engine...

- Steve HitchenIt usually takes a few cups of coffee and a Tim Tam or two to get through CASA's Corporate Plan when it comes in, and fortunately for me this year the cupboard was well stocked. It is, of course, an official document written in fluent Officialese, which can take some interpretation to work out what they are actually saying. However, there's one statement on p23 that can't be read any other way: "Over the following three years we will complete the regulatory reform program." Next year, despite several assurances of definite completion deadlines, the reform program turns 30 years old (do we get cake?). Consequently, it's hard to approach this predicted end to the epic reform program with any confidence. If Byron, McCormick and Skidmore failed to bring it to a close, what is Shane Carmody going to do different that his predecessors failed to do? It could be that the current Director of Aviation Safety has a more secure handle on what the great hold-up is, and so can adapt a much more suitable solution. I suppose it has to end somewhere, but in the great tradition of painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge, by the time CASA announces the end it will be time to reform the original completed parts; they'll be over 30 years old by then. With that in mind, will there ever actually be an end?

Quote:CASA needs to get over it's chronic case of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome

What I did like to see on paper is that CASA has indicated it will in future accept regulatory change proposals from the aviation industry and community. This is simply smart. CASA, despite their position in the industry, is not the complete repository of all aviation safety knowledge, and there are many people in the industry with expertise that CASA could leverage through this sort of approach. However, it will take two things for this to work: the aviation community has to grit their teeth and engage, and CASA needs to get over it's chronic case of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome. If CASA can solve these two issues, and use the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel prudently, it could bring about a huge increase in aviation safety in Australia.

Dynon Avionics' entry into the certified aircraft market is sure to shake-up the traditional EFIS manufacturers. The company has made its name with top-quality products for the sport and recreational markets, and now they are leveraging that over to tackle some very great names like Garmin, Avidyne, Aspen and Honeywell/Bendix King. The end result for aircraft owners surely has to be a decrease in price as well as an increase in functionality and ease-of-use. It's an STC thing only at the moment, but can it be long before we start to see Dynon equipment fitted as standard to new aircraft?

Didn't Kazan turn the Red Bull Air Race World Championshipon its head. Kirby Chambliss came out of the pack on the turn and now heads the field as they charge down the final straight! One week we were talking about how the field would be out after Yoshi Muroya, only to have Chambliss blind-side everyone with two straight victories. It has set up the series for a great last three races with only two points separating the top four pilots! By the end of the Porto round in the first week of September, any one of five pilots could have a points advantage over the rest of the field. This going to be a brilliant finish, and I won't be surprised at all if the contest goes all the way to Indianapolis.